The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

Nader has actually managed to win DC by 23 votes in my latest Gore self-sabotage run
Screenshot_6.png

He also lost Rhode Island by a margin of only 0,5%, and Massachusetts by about 1,5 % anyone here managed to get him to win these 2?
 
Last edited:
Running as Kennedy/Johnson on an economically liberal, hawkish foreign policy, I lost by 157 (with 366 for Nixon and 14 for Byrd) while winning most of the Eastside and, strangely, I also got the Deep South with a pro-Civil Rights platform.
dummy.jpg
 
Managed to top my previous 2016 Clinton best on normal with this run. Basically getting the Biden 2020 states plus NC, FL, and TX (managing to get AZ, which was the one state I didn't last time). Also came within 2% of winning IA and OH, but idk if those states could be won while also taking Texas - all effort was needed in that state, with it being won by just 0.05%, just 4,340 votes. Overall national popular vote just 0.1% better than my previous best, with a similar raw vote margin, and with an electoral college win here of 388-150
What strategy did you use?
 
What strategy did you use?
The same one I used in the previous one I did a page or two back. Just campaign the whole time in Texas. And basically focus on attacking Trump and/or going about as right wing as possible, rather than going economically populist and focusing on the issues. For the first few questions, I did the 50 state strategy, deflected with the 20 million emails option on the emails question, and went hard against terrorism rather than against Trump or guns after the shooting. Don't fully reject Bernie, but do the "we have no choice" waffle on the first one, and with the second one, just "a few small promises" if that one comes up. Took the most anti undocumented immigrant and anti refugee stances available. On the Hollywood access question, used the one pointing out Trump fondling Rudy Giuliani in drag. And on the ones after that, just deflect to Russia. And then get lucky because even with that strategy it is easy to lose Texas and possibly GA and AZ too
 
Interesting Truman -Dewey result on normal:


This was an attempt to play as Truman but to drive up both the Wallace and Thurmond vote as high as possible at the same time. This means mostly but not a complete self-sabotage for Truman. Truman's positions were pro-civil rights, as hardline anti-communist as possible, mostly anti New Deal (except for low income housing, which I figured, probably incorrectly, would play badly in the South) and anti-labor, and no recognition of Israel. I've self sabotaged Truman to the extent of driving the Wallace vote to 13%, but it didn't work this time. I did get Wallace to 7.6% and Thurmond to 2.6%, so not bad, while Truman still managed to finish within 3% of Dewey. Interesting map without much of a pattern as to how states flipped.
 
In one of the first post here, a commentator posted that the best strategy for Clay was to equivocate at first on Texas annexation, then to oppose it. I just tried that strategy on normal, and thought about it, and it makes sense. Its really the only way for Clay to finesse a victory.

In past games, I have usually come out in favor of Texas annexation at the start, and would almost always fail to carry New York and Pennsylvania and lose, though I got quite a few Clay cases of Clay prevailing in the nationwise popular vote. But Clay coming out at the start against annexation got even worse results, including results comparable to my Clay self-sabotage.

In the last game I tried equivocating, then opposing annexation. I still denounced Cassius' Clay letter and remained silent on the gag rule.

Its a mathematical issue. Clay needs 138 electoral votes to win. He will always carry Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont, even self sabotage games, for a total of 48 electoral votes. Polk will always carry New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Carolina (delivered by state legislature), for a guaranteed 63 electoral votes. Virginia is normally close, but the only times I've seen it go to Clay on normal is in Polk self sabotage games. I've seen Clay win Indiana, including when losing, but not that often, so for strategy purposes assume Polk will carry both and will and their 29 electoral votes.

There are 275 electoral votes nominally at play, but 111 will always go to either Clay or Polk on normal, leaving 164 at the most really in play. Clay needs 90 of the these. But you can usually count on Polk getting Virginia and Indiana and their 29 electoral votes, and Clay getting New Jersey and Delaware and their 10 electoral votes. That leaves Clay with having to get 80 votes from somewhere out of 125. New York and Pennsylvania combine for 62 electoral votes,;Ohio has 23,; North Carolina and and Tennessee have 24; and Louisiana and Georgia has 16.

Clay has no path to victory without New York and Pennsylvania. The only slightly realistic shot is by Clay winning his core states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, and Kentucky, plus New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, for 150 electoral votes. But he absolutely needs Virginia, which on normal is always close but always goes for Polk, but also Ohio, where he will lose too many votes to Birney with a hard southern strategy. And a hard southern strategy, which I've tried, is disastrous since it goes to much against Clay's earlier positions.

The problem with coming out with annexation at the start is that it makes Clay sound too radical. It seems that Clay has to be seen as treating the issue as not very important, then coming down more on the free soil side.

In the game I just tried, Clay got a 167 to 108 electoral vote victory, but he lost the nationwide popular vote, 49% to Polk for 48.8% to Clay and 2.2% to Birney. Its the only time I've seen Clay win in the electoral college and lose the nationwide popular vote, I've seen the opposite lots of times. He won New York, with Fillmore as his running mate, by 0.5% and Pennsylvania by 0.1%. The system stated that Clay's performance was better than 96.8% of the games played so far on normal.
 
In one of the first post here, a commentator posted that the best strategy for Clay was to equivocate at first on Texas annexation, then to oppose it. I just tried that strategy on normal, and thought about it, and it makes sense. Its really the only way for Clay to finesse a victory.

In past games, I have usually come out in favor of Texas annexation at the start, and would almost always fail to carry New York and Pennsylvania and lose, though I got quite a few Clay cases of Clay prevailing in the nationwise popular vote. But Clay coming out at the start against annexation got even worse results, including results comparable to my Clay self-sabotage.

In the last game I tried equivocating, then opposing annexation. I still denounced Cassius' Clay letter and remained silent on the gag rule.

Its a mathematical issue. Clay needs 138 electoral votes to win. He will always carry Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont, even self sabotage games, for a total of 48 electoral votes. Polk will always carry New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Carolina (delivered by state legislature), for a guaranteed 63 electoral votes. Virginia is normally close, but the only times I've seen it go to Clay on normal is in Polk self sabotage games. I've seen Clay win Indiana, including when losing, but not that often, so for strategy purposes assume Polk will carry both and will and their 29 electoral votes.

There are 275 electoral votes nominally at play, but 111 will always go to either Clay or Polk on normal, leaving 164 at the most really in play. Clay needs 90 of the these. But you can usually count on Polk getting Virginia and Indiana and their 29 electoral votes, and Clay getting New Jersey and Delaware and their 10 electoral votes. That leaves Clay with having to get 80 votes from somewhere out of 125. New York and Pennsylvania combine for 62 electoral votes,;Ohio has 23,; North Carolina and and Tennessee have 24; and Louisiana and Georgia has 16.

Clay has no path to victory without New York and Pennsylvania. The only slightly realistic shot is by Clay winning his core states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, and Kentucky, plus New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, for 150 electoral votes. But he absolutely needs Virginia, which on normal is always close but always goes for Polk, but also Ohio, where he will lose too many votes to Birney with a hard southern strategy. And a hard southern strategy, which I've tried, is disastrous since it goes to much against Clay's earlier positions.

The problem with coming out with annexation at the start is that it makes Clay sound too radical. It seems that Clay has to be seen as treating the issue as not very important, then coming down more on the free soil side.

In the game I just tried, Clay got a 167 to 108 electoral vote victory, but he lost the nationwide popular vote, 49% to Polk for 48.8% to Clay and 2.2% to Birney. Its the only time I've seen Clay win in the electoral college and lose the nationwide popular vote, I've seen the opposite lots of times. He won New York, with Fillmore as his running mate, by 0.5% and Pennsylvania by 0.1%. The system stated that Clay's performance was better than 96.8% of the games played so far on normal.

I just followed this strategy with Clay/Frelinghuysen ticket and carried the election along with New York. Apparently I've been playing this game wrong for so long...
 
...Clay needs 138 electoral votes to win. He will always carry Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont, even self sabotage games...
This is a bit beside the point, but it is actually possible to lose Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts as Clay. Vermont and Rhode Island are the only two states he is truly guaranteed.

As for strategy, I'm not entirely sure if equivocating and then opposing annexation is the best strategy, but I am pretty sure that at the very least equivocating is important to it. Here's a win with Clay with equivocation and then pro annexation, failed to take Pennsylvania but mostly made up for it with Indiana and Georgia
 
After some 30-40 attempts I finally got a Clinton 388-150 Electoral College victory with the Sunbelt Strategy. Funnily enough I tended to do better in games where Clinton did "poorly" against Trump in the debate than in games where her performance was "widely praised", the health issue remaining equal. Also really didn't expect this run to be the one since in a previous attempt I'd gotten more favorable margins in states like Ohio and Virginia and still lost Texas by 0.7%, so it was quite the shock when I actually over-performed specifically there to take the W.
Thanks to Col. Angus, can confirm his is a legit strat.
 
I remember reading Ted White style campaign books about the election of 1976, and in one of them Jules Witcover pointed out that Ford could have won in the electoral college and lost the nationwide popular vote by flipping Ohio and Wisconsin. They were close enough Carter states that this was possible.
 
I'm struggling with winning as WJB on normal. I have run a pro-Silver, social conservative, moderate foreign policy, moderate pro-Labor platform, and generally get pretty good results with that. I always take the moderate course on civil rights that avoids pissing off the south. Three times in a row I won the popular vote, but barely lost Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa to lose the election.

Is it possible to win with a liberal WJB, or do you have to take a more conservative tack on labor issues to stand a chance? Here's my most recent game as Bryan.
 
I'm struggling with winning as WJB on normal. I have run a pro-Silver, social conservative, moderate foreign policy, moderate pro-Labor platform, and generally get pretty good results with that. I always take the moderate course on civil rights that avoids pissing off the south. Three times in a row I won the popular vote, but barely lost Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa to lose the election.

Is it possible to win with a liberal WJB, or do you have to take a more conservative tack on labor issues to stand a chance? Here's my most recent game as Bryan.
Moderate on prohibition and tariffs, that is a good stance. Also say that there should have been more time for negotiation in the pullman strike.
 
Top